Archived: We are With You North East Lincolnshire

We rated Addaction North East Lincolnshire as good because:

• The service had enough staff to ensure the caseload of the team, and of individual members of staff, was not too high to prevent staff from giving each client the time they needed. They followed good practice with respect to medicines management, safeguarding and appropriately investigated incidents to ensure lessons were learnt and shared.
• Staff provided a range of treatments suitable to the needs of the clients and in line with national guidance about best practice. They engaged in audits and benchmarking to evaluate the quality of the care they provided.
• The team included all specialists required to meet the needs of clients under their care. Managers ensured these staff received training, supervision and appraisal. Staff worked well together as a multidisciplinary team and with relevant services outside the organisation.
• Staff treated clients with compassion and kindness. They understood the individual needs of clients and actively involved them in their care.
• The service was easy for clients to enter treatment. Staff planned and managed transfers and discharges well and encouraged clients to engage with the wider community. They met the needs of clients with complex needs and in vulnerable circumstances who often found engagement with services difficult. They listened to, investigated and learnt from concerns and complaints.
• The service was well led and the governance processes ensured that its procedures ran smoothly.

However:

• The premises did not enable staff to provide safe care on all occasions. The service did not have a working lift which meant clients who attended unexpectedly, and with mobility limitations, were very occasionally seen in a room which was unsuitable for both clients and staff.
• Staff did not ensure they recorded all current risks and interventions clearly on the risk assessment and management plans in a timely manner.
• Recovery plans and electronic case notes were not reflective of the holistic conversations which had taken place. They did not contain goals which were specific, measurable or timely. The service did not have a formal process in place to ensure a client’s physical health was regularly reviewed.
• Staff were unable to locate the information sharing agreements for some client’s; this meant they could not be assured that information was being shared with the client’s consent.